4 ms·

Presumably OP means a job in their profession, not employment generically.

by throwawaygh 5y ago

lostmsu 5y ago
In the current system not everyone is entitled to a job for their profession. People should get used to it.
- uncomputation 5y ago
  > People should get used to it. Historically, this line of thinking never ends well.
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    That's true, but it is also true, that this is (at least partially) a self-imposed problem. Many people are giggling when they hear about a liberal arts graduate who struggles to find a descent job, but they never think the same might apply to their profession too.
- throwawaygh 5y ago
  So instead of optimizing for efficient allocation of labor and capital, we should instead optimize for the short-term benefit of the landed gentry class? Seems like a likely path to either economic ruin or political revolution. Probably both. Since you don't seem like you're be sympathetic to an ethical argument, here's some real-politik: "fuck the poors" works well enough when the poor are actually poor. Less well when the people being systematically fucked over have significant social esteem, education, and economic means. See: the American Revolution.
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    I don't see an ethical argument going against what I said in the parent comment. Here's a non-hypothetical scenario: Boeing lays off thousands of mechanical engineers in Greater Seattle Area. What do you suppose the local government has to do exactly to find jobs in mechanical engineering for them? What does it have to do with ethics?
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  So you're saying that instead of optimizing for the job I am qualified for and have experience of, I should move to somewhere where the labour market is more subdued, and move to an industry where I have no experience?
  - lostmsu 5y ago
    Basically, yes. Local (and global) market only has so many positions for a specific profession. If there are more qualified people, than positions, you are out of luck and might need to do exactly what you described.

Presumably OP means a job in their profession, not employment generically.

lostmsu 5y ago

In the current system not everyone is entitled to a job for their profession. People should get used to it.

uncomputation 5y ago
> People should get used to it. Historically, this line of thinking never ends well.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  That's true, but it is also true, that this is (at least partially) a self-imposed problem. Many people are giggling when they hear about a liberal arts graduate who struggles to find a descent job, but they never think the same might apply to their profession too.
throwawaygh 5y ago
So instead of optimizing for efficient allocation of labor and capital, we should instead optimize for the short-term benefit of the landed gentry class? Seems like a likely path to either economic ruin or political revolution. Probably both. Since you don't seem like you're be sympathetic to an ethical argument, here's some real-politik: "fuck the poors" works well enough when the poor are actually poor. Less well when the people being systematically fucked over have significant social esteem, education, and economic means. See: the American Revolution.
- lostmsu 5y ago
  I don't see an ethical argument going against what I said in the parent comment. Here's a non-hypothetical scenario: Boeing lays off thousands of mechanical engineers in Greater Seattle Area. What do you suppose the local government has to do exactly to find jobs in mechanical engineering for them? What does it have to do with ethics?
KaiserPro 5y ago
So you're saying that instead of optimizing for the job I am qualified for and have experience of, I should move to somewhere where the labour market is more subdued, and move to an industry where I have no experience?
- lostmsu 5y ago
  Basically, yes. Local (and global) market only has so many positions for a specific profession. If there are more qualified people, than positions, you are out of luck and might need to do exactly what you described.